Opinion: Dual Received and Logging PIC

J

JC150

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
491
Display Name
Display name:
JC150
Does anyone here log PIC time because of the sole manipulator section while receiving flight instruction? For example, you're a private pilot and you're flying your 250NM cross country requirement with your flight instructor and you're the sole manipulator from start to shut down. Would you log that as PIC?

Reason I ask is my friend recently got hired at SkyWest and they made him subtract PIC from all dual received flights. I'm debating subtracting all my PIC entries but wanted to hear from others here if they do this too.
 
Of course we do. That doesn't mean an airline can't count whatever they would like though.
 
JC150 said:
Does anyone here log PIC time because of the sole manipulator section while receiving flight instruction? For example, you're a private pilot and you're flying your 250NM cross country requirement with your flight instructor and you're the sole manipulator from start to shut down. Would you log that as PIC?

Reason I ask is my friend recently got hired at SkyWest and they made him subtract PIC from all dual received flights. I'm debating subtracting all my PIC entries but wanted to hear from others here if they do this too.
Click to expand...


If you're a PPL flying on a dual x/c with your CFI that's PIC all day long :dunno:

I wouldn't bother subtracting anything, if it's logged per the FARs that's that.

Beggars can be choosers I guess.
 
What Sam said.

Having said that, there are times when the CFI cannot be the legal PIC and still provide dual instruction. Sky West's application, Sky West's rules but sheesh.
 
James and Greg are right. If you want to be anal about it, change the column heading in your log book to "61.51(e)(1)(i) PIC time".

If your future employer wants a different number, happily compute it for him. Although he is wrong, he is the law at this stage of your career. But don't muck up your logbook, just start a different column for his benefit. -Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
James and Greg are right. If you want to be anal about it, change the column heading in your log book to "61.51(e)(1)(i) PIC time".

If your future employer wants a different number, happily compute it for him. Although he is wrong, he is the law at this stage of your career. But don't muck up your logbook, just start a different column for his benefit. -Skip
Click to expand...
He is not "wrong." Employers, whether in aviation or anything else, get to decide what they want for experience (beyond, of course, at least meeting an applicable legal requirements). If a bank application asks whether I have experience handling money, it is certainly not "wrong" in saying "excluding working as a cashier at fast food restaurants."

But, as you and others point out, that's no reason to "muck up" a logbook which has the primary purpose of showing the FAA that one meets FAA requirements.
 
Rules on what can and can't / should and shouldn't be logged change so much over decades, that most entries, beyond "TOTAL FLIGHT TIME" are meaningless.
When I started many decades back, one in training had the option of logging solo or dual, not PIC. If I kept changing with the rules, I'd have so many line-outs, my log would simulate a kids' coloring book.
Another joke is XCTY. Most of my flights have legs that are in excess of 150nm --- but the landing and take-off is from my home-drome -- not loggable as XCTY. But if I go across the street to the neighbor A/P 10 miles away, it is ---> as stupid as if I logged XCTY moving my plane to the other side of the ramp.
<irksome rules>
 
JC150 said:
Does anyone here log PIC time because of the sole manipulator section while receiving flight instruction? For example, you're a private pilot and you're flying your 250NM cross country requirement with your flight instructor and you're the sole manipulator from start to shut down. Would you log that as PIC?

Reason I ask is my friend recently got hired at SkyWest and they made him subtract PIC from all dual received flights. I'm debating subtracting all my PIC entries but wanted to hear from others here if they do this too.
Click to expand...

Let's use another example: Your instrument rating requires 50 hours of cross country PIC. Typically, 5-10 hours of that takes place during dual cross country flights, including the required IFR dual cross country.

Are you willing to remove the PIC entries from those and pay a second time for those same flights just because a future employer want a different number?

Keep in mind there are also flights that will satisfy an employer's "PIC" definition but are not loggable as PIC for FAA purposes. Are you willing to make false entries in your logbook fro some future employer?

What most do is akin what what Skip indicated - an extra column to track the type of time most employers seem to be interested in - acting PIC time. Although even that is not quite exact either.
 
oldShar said:
Rules on what can and can't / should and shouldn't be logged change so much over decades, that most entries, beyond "TOTAL FLIGHT TIME" are meaningless.
When I started many decades back, one in training had the option of logging solo or dual, not PIC. If I kept changing with the rules, I'd have so many line-outs, my log would simulate a kids' coloring book.
Another joke is XCTY. Most of my flights have legs that are in excess of 150nm --- but the landing and take-off is from my home-drome -- not loggable as XCTY. But if I go across the street to the neighbor A/P 10 miles away, it is ---> as stupid as if I logged XCTY moving my plane to the other side of the ramp.
<irksome rules>
Click to expand...
Except for qualifying the logging of student solo time as PIC about 18 years ago (the one and only change that led me to recalculate my time entries), the basic rules of logging PIC for 90+% of the pilot population haven't changed that much in decades. The basic "sole manipulator of the controls" of an aircraft for which a pilot is rated and "acting as PIC" on flight or operation that requires more than one pilot are both more than 40 years old.

BTW, "total flight time" has also changed, no you, can't escape by that route. Best you can do is count today's qualifications and currency by today's rules.
 
I might decide to only hire someone that has xc time in a 152 over 500nm.... You might have to do some math
 
I thought they were taking anyone with a ATP nowadays, can't you just show them your ATP card and be done with it?
 
oldShar said:
Rules on what can and can't / should and shouldn't be logged change so much over decades, that most entries, beyond "TOTAL FLIGHT TIME" are meaningless.
Click to expand...
BULLPOOP. The rules for PIC logging have changed only in trivial manners since I started nearly four decades ago. About the only change to the PIC logging rule is that in the 90s they decided to let student pilots log their solo time as PIC. The sole manipulator for private pilots has been unchanged since longer than that.
When I started many decades back, one in training had the option of logging solo or dual, not PIC. If I kept changing with the rules, I'd have so many line-outs, my log would simulate a kids' coloring book.
Click to expand...
Bullhocky. From the time the CARs defined logging the rule for private and commercial pilots (at least in the 1945 version of the regs I have) were that they logged it when they were the sole manipulator of the controls for which you were rated. Similarly the provision for instructors giving instruction was there The only thing that changed was that they used to call it "solo" time (even if you weren't alone). They later changed it to pilot in command time (but I'm still sure that predates your aviation experience).
But from 1945 to the present, it's *NEVER* been the case that instruction time was mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Bullhocky. From the time the CARs defined logging the rule for private and commercial pilots (at least in the 1945 version of the regs I have) were that they logged it when they were the sole manipulator of the controls for which you were rated. Similarly the provision for instructors giving instruction was there The only thing that changed was that they used to call it "solo" time (even if you weren't alone). They later changed it to pilot in command time (but I'm still sure that predates your aviation experience).
But from 1945 to the present, it's *NEVER* been the case that instruction time was mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

It appears oldShar has it right:
Logging time.jpg​
The "or" means to me (and everybody else back then) that they're exclusive. That word disappeared in 1972, near as I've found, with no discussion. The FAA cleaned up Part 61 and swept it out with the trash. Soon after, logging practices changed. The other rule cited as justification, i.e., a private pilot can log PIC time in an aircraft if he's rated, is a red herring IMO. Back then it was stating if you flew, say, a multi-engine without holding a class rating you could only log it as Solo not PIC.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
sky worst's hiring mins right now are 1500 hrs total and a heart beat. thats about it. if your missing the heart beat try PSA.
 
unsafervguy said:
sky worst's hiring mins right now are 1500 hrs total and a heart beat. thats about it. if your missing the heart beat try PSA.
Click to expand...

Exactly.


Just do a PRIA, drug screen, background check, no drugs, no record, PRIA comes back showing a full multi ATP and no violations or accidents, you're hired, you could do it all through the mail, from the comfort of your couch.


I don't understand why they need to even look at your log, maybe it's to make you feel like you're competing for a elite job, or to appear as if they are anything other then a bottom rung budget airline :dunno:
 
This is why I hate airlines. They want to play by their own rules and discount perfectly legal logbook entries. Thats why I'm going to stay part 91 and make 3x the money on day one and never sweat what the airline thinks is actual time or not.
 
They are the ones higher interest, they can pick whatever criteria that they prefer... Even a college degree :)
 
NJP_MAN said:
This is why I hate airlines. They want to play by their own rules and discount perfectly legal logbook entries. Thats why I'm going to stay part 91 and make 3x the money on day one and never sweat what the airline thinks is actual time or not.
Click to expand...

They don't really. Part 121 qualification rules set minimum flight time requirements. Those are all measured by 61.51 & 61.1 definitions of cross-country time.

Beyond that, don't you think an employer - any employer - has the right to decide what qualifications it wants for the job? Is an accouning firm that only wants people with 5 years experience in corporate accounting for companies with more than 100 employees being unreasonable? How about a homeowner who insists on 3 solid references from a home improvement contractor? How about an airline that wants to hire pilots with a certain amount of time being the person with ultimate responsibility for a flight?

I do'nt think any of them are being unreasonable at all. YMMV.
 

They should be up front with their expectations rather than let an applicant get into ground school and then say that you are no longer qualified. Now this example doesn't say that they disqualified the applicant but I have read of times they have. I have never had any of my time questioned or discounted and I like it that way.

As long as the time is legal an airline should be more interested in the quality of the employee and not whether or not they had an instructor on board. Thats the least they could do since they are going to pay you the equivalent of what the convent store across the street pays.
 
^^^ you're not going to be able to avoid this by going Part 91. There are operators out there with specific requirements as well. I know because I used to work for one. This isn't an airline thing - it's an employer thing. Nobody is saying you have to keep it out of your logbook - you're just not including it in your totals when you apply. Their house - their rules.
 
NJP_MAN said:
They should be up front with their expectations rather than let an applicant get into ground school and then say that you are no longer qualified. Now this example doesn't say that they disqualified the applicant but I have read of times they have. I have never had any of my time questioned or discounted and I like it that way.

As long as the time is legal an airline should be more interested in the quality of the employee and not whether or not they had an instructor on board. Thats the least they could do since they are going to pay you the equivalent of what the convent store across the street pays.
Click to expand...
I guess I was thinking that airline jobs had lots of applicants and airlines were just using a screening process similar to other businesses to weed the group down to potential quality employees who have actual command experience. My mistake.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess I was thinking that airline jobs had lots of applicants and airlines were just using a screening process similar to other businesses to weed the group down to potential quality employees who have actual command experience. My mistake.
Click to expand...

I'd rather hire an AMF metro SIC with hundreds of hours right seat time vs a guy that's only been flying a mapping job PIC due to type of operation. Some airlines will consider all the Metro time invalid due to single pilot nature of the aircraft but it more accurately represents what they will be doing when they are in the RJ.
 
kayoh190 said:
^^^ you're not going to be able to avoid this by going Part 91. There are operators out there with specific requirements as well. I know because I used to work for one. This isn't an airline thing - it's an employer thing. Nobody is saying you have to keep it out of your logbook - you're just not including it in your totals when you apply. Their house - their rules.
Click to expand...

So far so good. Doing very well considering I dont qualify for the fisher-price ATP and I have a primary job and contracting for 2 other operators.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess I was thinking that airline jobs had lots of applicants and airlines were just using a screening process similar to other businesses to weed the group down to potential quality employees who have actual command experience. My mistake.
Click to expand...


My understanding is they don't have many applicants, when you subtract the people who obviously don't make mins (ie some 12 year old on FSX, or a 300hr CPL), they need ATPs and they ain't many who will put up with the low QOL they offer. As I recall a few operations were cutting back flights due to staffing issues.
 
NJP_MAN said:
So far so good. Doing very well considering I dont qualify for the fisher-price ATP and I have a primary job and contracting for 2 other operators.
Click to expand...

What's a fisher-price ATP?
 
James331 said:
My understanding is they don't have many applicants, when you subtract the people who obviously don't make mins (ie some 12 year old on FSX, or a 300hr CPL), they need ATPs and they ain't many who will put up with the low QOL they offer. As I recall a few operations were cutting back flights due to staffing issues.
Click to expand...
One reason they do need pilots is because they actually have hiring standards, as is shown in this thread.
 
Kritchlow said:
They're the best pilots in the world?
Click to expand...

Of course they are. They get to perform the job of a real ATP but they don't need as much experience. To me that means you're a damn good pilot. Like LeBron going straight to big leagues right out of high school.

Side note more aligned with the thread topic:

Since the implementation of the 1500 hr rule many pilots have been driven to find time where ever they can. This includes acting as a safety pilot. So I suppose all this time (which is real) would be discounted because some people don't see the value in safety pilot time.
 
Kritchlow said:
One reason they do need pilots is because they actually have hiring standards, as is shown in this thread.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They have the standards that the govt forced them to have, a ATP.

As it has been mentioned before, a ATP and a pulse you're in, why they are making people add and subtract time and do this silly dance is beyond me, seeing how they are in a position that they'll take anyone with a ATP ticket.
 
James331 said:
No they don't. They have the standards that the govt forced them to have, a ATP.
Click to expand...
They do have standards. That's the whole point of this thread... They don't care about certain types of PIC. As for requiring an ATP, yes, it's the government that imposed that. After all, I didn't say WHY they had standards, but they do have standards. People wash out if training all the time...
 
NJP_MAN said:
Of course they are. They get to perform the job of a real ATP but they don't need as much experience. To me that means you're a damn good pilot. Like LeBron going straight to big leagues right out of high school.

Side note more aligned with the thread topic:

Since the implementation of the 1500 hr rule many pilots have been driven to find time where ever they can. This includes acting as a safety pilot. So I suppose all this time (which is real) would be discounted because some people don't see the value in safety pilot time.
Click to expand...
Lol!!! Almost zero experience, never been a jet captain.... But they're the best pilots in the world??!! When they actually get some experience and shed the "R", they are no longer the best pilots in the world??
 
Kritchlow said:
Lol!!! Almost zero experience, never been a jet captain.... But they're the best pilots in the world??!! When they actually get some experience and shed the "R", they are no longer the best pilots in the world??
Click to expand...

They certainly are more capable than someone with 499 more hours of actual flight experience according to the government.
 
Kritchlow said:
Lol!!! Almost zero experience, never been a jet captain.... But they're the best pilots in the world??!! When they actually get some experience and shed the "R", they are no longer the best pilots in the world??
Click to expand...

The gain on your sarcasm detector is set too low, Kritchlow. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top